U.S. troop redeployment is sensible, long overdue

  • Charles Krauthammer
  • Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:00pm
  • Opinion

WASHINGTON – For 60 years, American troops in the tens of thousands have been sitting in Germany essentially where Eisenhower left them at the end of World War II. For 50 years, American troops in the tens of thousands have been sitting where Matthew Ridgway left them at the end of the Korean War. For three years, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been making plans to undo this colossal idiocy.

On Monday, President Bush formally unveiled plans to withdraw 60,000 to 70,000 American troops from obsolete battle stations. Some are to come home. Others are to be redeployed to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia to smaller, more flexible bases closer to the new front of the new war, the war on terror.

The move is long overdue. The U.S. military presence in Germany was meant to anchor an American commitment to defend Europe against Soviet invasion. The Soviet Union disappeared 13 years ago. What in God’s name are two heavy divisions still doing there?

During the Cold War their purpose was “to keep America in, Russia out, and Germany down.” Well, Russia is not exactly set to invade Europe. It is not America’s job to keep Germany down. And America has other places its troops must more urgently go – and where many of its allies are not prepared to tread.

The Democrats’ response is a classic demonstration of reactionary liberalism, the reflexive defense of the status quo long after its raison d’etre has evaporated. Kerry adviser Wesley Clark protested vigorously: “As we face a global war on terror with al-Qaida active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces.”

He cannot be serious. How exactly are the 72,000 American troops in Germany fighting al-Qaida? A lot of good they did in uncovering the al-Qaida cell in Hamburg that carried out 9/11. This hugely expensive deployment – with its large logistics tail and tens of thousands of dependents added to the bill – could be put to infinitely better use elsewhere.

Critics are particularly vociferous about drawing down 12,500 of our troops in South Korea. We all know what our troops are doing there. They are intended to be sitting ducks. Thirty-seven thousand Americans are not going to repel a million-man North Korean army. Their purpose is to die in the first hours of a North Korean invasion – setting off a tripwire that forces the United States to enter the war.

This invitation to suicide might have made sense when South Korea was weak, impoverished and war-ravaged. Today it is an industrialized tiger with a large and superbly equipped army. It makes far more sense to redeploy these troops to where they are really needed – to support weak, impoverished and war-ravaged countries in the Middle East front whose governments cannot yet carry the burden of their own defense.

John Kerry claims that withdrawing troops will send “the wrong signal” in a confrontation with North Korea over its nuclear weapons. Where was he when the Clinton administration sent a signal of abject surrender to the North Koreans by offering two shiny new nuclear reactors, oil shipments and all kinds of diplomatic goodies in return for a paper promise to freeze their nuclear program – which they now brazenly and proudly claim to have broken long ago?

It is long past time that we readjusted our defensive lines overseas to reflect the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. still has 1,700 military personnel in Iceland. From whom exactly are we protecting Iceland? Or are we there to keep an eye on al-Qaida cells in Greenland?

Democrats accuse the administration of politicizing the redeployment by bringing it up as a campaign issue. This truly is precious. The Democrats turned their convention into a four-day teach-in celebrating the Swift boats of the Mekong River circa 1968 – and then question the legitimacy of raising as a campaign issue for the consideration of the nation the most significant redeployment of American troops abroad since the Korean War.

The president would have been culpable had he not brought it up. Not only is there an obvious policy difference between the two parties, but a president should put it on the table if he is to earn the mandate to carry out so radical a plan after the election.

The New York Times editorial page offered this reason for maintaining the status quo: Otherwise, “the military will also lose the advantage that comes with giving large numbers of its men and women the experience of living in other cultures.” Seventy-thousand GIs parked in Stuttgart practicing their German and listening to Wagner. Finally a military deployment The New York Times can support.

Charles Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. Contact him by writing to letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Feb. 11

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

CNA Nina Prigodich, right, goes through restorative exercises with long term care patient Betty Long, 86, at Nightingale's View Ridge Care Center on Friday, Feb. 10, 2023 in Everett, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Boost state Medicaid funding for long-term care

With more in need of skilled nursing and assisted-living services, funding must keep up to retain staff.

Sentencing reforms more complicated than column described

I read Todd Welch’s Jan. 29 column. He is certainly entitled to… Continue reading

President Trump running nation like his failed businesses

We’ve seen it before; President Trump will do or say anything to… Continue reading

Intent of Trump’s nominees is to subvert good government

It is clear that Donald Trump has something specific in mind with… Continue reading

Comment: Musk’s USAID shutdown an attack on most vulnerable

Even promises of ‘waivers’ are falling short and allowing medical efforts to dry up, endangering millions.

Comment: Real dangers loom with Trump’s incoherent trade policy

Even if Trump could settle on a justification for his tariffs, the results could leave the country far. weaker.

bar graph, pie chart and diagrams isolated on white, 3d illustration
Editorial: Don’t let state’s budget numbers intimidate you

With budget discussions starting soon, a new website explains the basics of state’s budget crisis.

Curtains act as doors for a handful of classrooms at Glenwood Elementary on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024 in Lake Stevens, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Schools’ building needs point to election reform

Construction funding requests in Arlington and Lake Stevens show need for a change to bond elections.

FILE- In this Nov. 14, 2017, file photo Jaìme Ceja operates a forklift while loading boxes of Red Delicious apples on to a trailer during his shift in an orchard in Tieton, Wash. Cherry and apple growers in Washington state are worried their exports to China will be hurt by a trade war that escalated on Monday when that country raised import duties on a $3 billion list of products. (Shawn Gust/Yakima Herald-Republic via AP, File)
Editorial: Trade war would harm state’s consumers, jobs

Trump’s threat of tariffs to win non-trade concessions complicates talks, says a state trade advocate.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, Feb. 10

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Trump can go only as far as the courts will allow

Most of Trump’s executive orders are likely to face court challenges, setting the limits of presidential power.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.